Multiple Choice Magic Design Question of the Day 6

6) Which of the following is the best way to achieve resonance on a single card?
 a) Use keywords and ability words to define its features.
 b) Prove the rule by finding an exception to it.
 c) Demonstrate as much that's true about the concept as possible.
 d) Show the concept in contrast with its opposite.
 e) Demonstrate one unique thing that's true about the concept.

Click through to see the answer and my rationale.

Resonance describes how much a card's mechanical characteristics map onto the idea it represents (as depicted by its name, art, and flavor text), how closely the card resonates with what the audience knows about the subject, and how well a card feels like it fits its set's theme. A new concept (like Beebles) can be resonant too, if the card introducing it is specific, unambiguous, and internally consistent.

I imagine this is an easy one—provided my answers aren't too wildly interpretable—but we'll see.

A keyword or ability word can do a lot of good work affecting resonance across all the cards it appears on. Monstrosity did a great job making it clear what cyclopses and hydras had in common on Theros (it wasn't number of eyes). But a single card doesn't need every ability labeled for the audience to get what it means. Shivan Dragon has firebreathing even though 'fire' and 'breath' never appear in the rules text. Naming a mechanic just to clarify it's purpose on a single card is insufficient justification.

Vampire-with-a-heart is a concept you can sell a TV-series on, but only because the audience is already familiar with vampires and how heartless they are (and because TV is a good medium to show off David Boreanaz). Two-Legged-Lythosaur only means anything to an audience that knows Lythosaurs don't normally walk on two legs, or what makes one doing so of any interest. Though cinema has no physical depth, it is a three-dimensional medium (height, width, and time) and so a fine place to show three-dimensional characters. A card is literally two dimensions. A dozen cards is a different story, but the first one needs to be representative of the group. So do the next ten, and 98% of the cards after that.

Go ask 10 people everything they know about the Lorax, and those who know will give you very similar answers. Go ask about zombies, elves, or goblins, and—aside from some very core stuff—you'll get a bunch of different answers. I don't want to see the elf that is simultaneously a woodland spirit; a thin humanoid (whose somehow both taller and shorter than humans) of great intelligence and dexterity, with grace and composure; and also makes toys in Santa's workshop, wearing pointy boots. I don't even want to see that high elf whose both distinctly wise and agile on a card, because that card has a weaker identity than the two cards, one of which is a smart elf and the other of which is a deft elf. Cards need to be elegant, both for mechanical simplicity and for thematic identity, and putting facts A, B and C all on the same card renders us a single muddy card when we could parcel them out and get three distinct cards.

A black knight is nothing without its counterpart, and neither David nor Goliath are quite as interesting without the other, but its dangerous to illustrate opponents on the same card unless the card is literally about their conflict. Doing so makes it less clear who we're focusing on, whether we're talking about the literal illustration box on the card, or the text box. The better option is to define our concept clearly on this card, and make another card where we define the opposing concept (hey, white knight) and let their similarities and differences demonstrate their relationship.

Among these options, E is the best answer. Cards aren't novels or movies—they're not even a page from the Monster Manual—they are 2.5x3.5" snapshots. If your concept is worth showing multiple facets of, like dragons or goblins, then it will warrant future cards and each card can highlight one facet. With the partial exception of planeswalkers, that's all a card is capable of.

While Creative does the bulk of card concepting, resonance is vital to top-down design. And because game design is an iterative process, it's even important for developers who work on a card after it's already concepted to be able to recognize opportunities to create stronger resonance (or reduce dissonance). This is important not just to Vorthos and the game's aesthetic appeal, but to easing the process of players learning and remembering the cards correctly.